Haseeb

So I don't think that's uniquely true right now.

I think it's that things started going down and so people sold.

And, you know, anything that would not have been explained by the price chart doesn't get more explained by looking at this.

I don't feel like we know enough.

So one, you know, filing to be able to make an offering does not mean that you have to actually do the offering.

So he may have, again, kept his options open, want to test the market, talk to actual buyers, and then he may decide go, no go, depending on what the appetite is.

Now, that said, I think actually BitMind is situated pretty differently from strategy because of the fact that Ether has a yield.

And because Ether has a yield, you can actually pay the yield here by just selling the yield and not selling the principal.

And so he doesn't actually have to sell any ETH, any net new ETH, in order to be able to fund this in principle, depending on how big it is.

But this is the endgame, right?

This is why you run a DAT and get to scale, is that you can have these very...

favorable financing mechanisms that are a lot better than what you and I could get if we wanted to get some leverage on something.

We can't offer preferred stock on our crypto buys, but maybe Tom Lee can.

I think it's plausible.

I buy that story in part.

I think, look, the reality is whether you're funding this out of staking yield or whether you're funding it out of Bitcoin, you know, sales of the underlying, the difference is really one of narrative as opposed to the underlying mechanics, right?

Because, look, if Saylor is funding through Bitcoin sales, which I think, like we said, I think he's going to learn that you cannot do that.

You have to dilute common stock if you want to pay these dividends.

Right.

But if you're doing it by selling Bitcoin, the reason why markets revolted is the story, right?